Ayyakkannu v. The Commissioner

O R D E R This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus consisting of two distinct prayers.

¶2Firstly, it prays for the appointment of a priest. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the post of priest is vacant and therefore, the respondents have to take steps to appoint a priest in accordance with law.

¶3The learned Additional Government Pleader, taking notice on behalf of the respondents, would submit that as far as the priest is concerned, currently the post of Assistant Priest has been filled up and the said person is available for the conduct of day-to-day pooja. As far as the vacancy is concerned, as per the schedule, the same will be considered by Page No. 2 of 8 the Commissioner and due orders will be passed for filling up the said vacancy.

¶4The same is recorded. Expeditious steps shall be taken by the Commissioner in accordance with law.

¶5The prayer contains a second limb, which is with reference to laying an inscription to mark the ceremony of the Mahakumbhabisekam.

¶6The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that when the Mahakumbhabisekam was conducted with due fervour and the task has been accomplished to the satisfaction of everyone, it is customary to place an inscription in that regard. However, when the petitioner made a representation in this regard, the same has not been done.

¶7In reply thereto, the learned Additional Government Pleader would appearing for the respondents would submit that the inscription, as proposed by the petitioner, also contains caste names. Secondly, the desirability of the same has to be considered by the Executive Officer of the temple and accordingly, it has to be decided. Page No. 3 of 8

¶8I have considered the submission made on either side and perused the material records of the case.

¶9It must be seen that temples such as the one in the instant case, namely Arulmighu Thirukandeshwaraswamy Temple, Thamarankottai, Pattukottai Taluk, Thanjavur District, were constructed by persons who built the same with great grandeur and architectural excellence using granite, etc. In many cases, they did not think it fit to make any inscription, except for some historical purpose.

¶10However, nowadays, even if people conduct Kumbhabisekam, they seek to place inscriptions in many temples. In several instances, such inscriptions are inappropriately placed in heritage structures, thereby causing damage to the same. Even pristine granite walls are damaged to fix such inscriptions. Further, such inscriptions also contain caste names, which is wholly undesirable.

¶11It must also be noted that the deity is Aram Valartha Nayaki and it is inappropriate that under the very presence of the deity, attempts are Page No. 4 of 8 made to propagate caste. Therefore, the inclusion of caste names cannot be permitted, even if an inscription is otherwise allowed.

¶12It is for the Executive Officer, as well as the higher authorities of the H.R. & C.E. Department, to first consider the desirability of permitting such an inscription. Secondly, if it is decided to permit an inscription, the same shall be placed only in a duly earmarked location without causing any damage to the heritage structures and it shall not be placed at the entrance or within the Ardha Mandapa or Garbhagriha, etc. If at all permitted, it may be placed only in the side compound or such other non-intrusive places as may be decided by the authorities. In any event, it shall not meddle with the architectural marvel, tradition or heritage of the temple.

¶13Therefore, with the above observations, the Executive Officer of the temple concerned, though not a party to this petition, is requested to consider the representation made by the petitioners and thereafter make a proposal to the Joint Commissioner. If the Joint Commissioner deem it necessary, due permission may be granted, ensuring that no caste name is included and that the inscription is placed in an appropriate manner and at Page No. 5 of 8 an appropriate place to be identified by the authorities. It is made clear that if any inscription is laid within the premises, either presently or in future, in violation of the above conditions, the same shall be liable to be removed.

¶14Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

30.03.2026 JEN To

1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Chennai.

2.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District. Copy To

1.The Executive Officer, Arulmighu Thirukandeshwaraswamy, Thamarankottai, Pattukottai Taluk, Thanjavur District.

2.The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Page No. 6 of 8 Endowment Department, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District. Page No. 7 of 8 D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

, J.

JEN

30.03.2026 (2/2) Page No. 8 of 8

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 30.03.2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY 1.Ayyakkannu 2.Elango 3.Baladhandayudhapani 4.Thirunavukkarasu 5.Jayakumar 6.Santhalingam ... Petitioners Vs. 1.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Chennai. 2.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District. ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing respondents herein to appoint the priest (Purohithar) as per Agama Rules and lay an inscription to mark the ceremony of Mahakumbhabisekam of the temple namely Page No. 1 of 8 Arulmighu Thirukandeshwaraswamy, Thamarankottai, Pattukottai Taluk, Thanjavur District held on 30.11.2025 based on the petitioner's representations dated 08.12.2025 and 15.02.2026. For Petitioners : Mr.V.Subramanian For Respondents : Mr.M.Sarangan Additional Government Pleader *****